5 ms·

Racism is violence. Words ARE violence. Sorry if you live in a country where this is not a legal truth, but here in Europe it is. https://www.un.org/en/hate-sp

Racism is violence. Words ARE violence. Sorry if you live in a country where this is not a legal truth, but here in Europe it is. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/... https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy https://hatecrime.osce.org/hate-crime-legislation-italy

ilikehurdles 1y ago
Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence, your first argument is that words are violence if the law says that words are violence! That’s not demonstrating an ability to reason. If the law says Allah (or any other figure) is the one true god, is that then true? Laws can be wrong. They can be passed by motivated actors seeking to protect their own power and policy. Free speech means protecting speech which is offense. You don’t need free speech protection for inoffensive speech. Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence to defend themselves against views they don’t like. This is catastrophic for liberal society.
lordkrandel 1y ago
> Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence You probably cannot read: Art. 604-bis [Propaganda and incitement to commit crime for discrimination on racial, ethnic and religious grounds] Unless the fact constitutes a more serious offence: a) whoever disseminates ideas based on racial superiority or racial/ethnic hatred, or incites to commit/commits discrimination acts on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year and six months or with a fine up to 6,000 euro;
- ilikehurdles 1y ago
  Your replies are all over the thread. You’re right I didn’t read the entirety of both the links you outsourced your thinking to, but despite this, my point stands. You’d know this if you read past the first sentence.
cocoricamo 1y ago
+100 social points as you were comrade

ilikehurdles 1y ago

Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence, your first argument is that words are violence if the law says that words are violence! That’s not demonstrating an ability to reason. If the law says Allah (or any other figure) is the one true god, is that then true? Laws can be wrong. They can be passed by motivated actors seeking to protect their own power and policy. Free speech means protecting speech which is offense. You don’t need free speech protection for inoffensive speech. Further, by equating speech to violence you’re allowing them to react with actual violence to defend themselves against views they don’t like. This is catastrophic for liberal society.

lordkrandel 1y ago

> Ignoring the fact that your second link has nothing to do with words being violence You probably cannot read: Art. 604-bis [Propaganda and incitement to commit crime for discrimination on racial, ethnic and religious grounds] Unless the fact constitutes a more serious offence: a) whoever disseminates ideas based on racial superiority or racial/ethnic hatred, or incites to commit/commits discrimination acts on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds shall be punished with imprisonment up to one year and six months or with a fine up to 6,000 euro;

ilikehurdles 1y ago
Your replies are all over the thread. You’re right I didn’t read the entirety of both the links you outsourced your thinking to, but despite this, my point stands. You’d know this if you read past the first sentence.

cocoricamo 1y ago

+100 social points as you were comrade